Kroft was interviewed by the Richmond paper. I’ll paraphrase: 1. Architecture program not conducive to being a student athlete. Academics are tough. Couple changes in major.
2. He and whit didn’t share the same philosophy in terms of style of play. Kroft is a mid range guy and whit’s “statistically proven” concept is there is no more midrange game. It’s 3’s or drive it. (Seems this woulda been laid out during recruitment)
3. Kroft wants to go where he can play his game and not have a coach try to change him too much.
So there ya go.
Personally I would have loved to see the kid give us a midrange game. Did whit not recruit him with his most useful talents in mind?
Post by realitycheck on Mar 31, 2020 11:51:12 GMT -6
Well, this "statistically proven" philosophy of cranking threes or going to the rim and ignoring mid-range has produced zero championships and one CIT appearance in 7 years. Either the method is flawed, the recruitment to the method is insufficient or the ability to teach and coach the method is poor. Why choose just one? Let's go with all three!
Can't have a coach coaching you...changing anything.
Need a Mr Rogers coaching philosophy.
You are perfect just the way you are.
If a coach feels a kid doesn’t fit his philosophy why recruit him in the first place?
Now I better understand the parents tweeting about players and parents being sure to fully understand what a coach wants/don’t get lied to, etc. (not that I think they were totally correct or shoo-in have been doing it). But I now can see some possible reasoning now.
Kids rejecting the way Whit wants them to play could be interpreted as those kids "not wanting to be coached."
It could also be kids rejecting limiting their game, being put into a box. Teague is the only player I can think of recently who's seemingly had the freedom to expand his game and that was, at times, clearly detrimental to the team.
I would think that guys like Hazen and Mallers would have benefitted from the freedom to work in the 10-12-foot range. And I really fear that Bum is going to toe the line and become nothing more than a spot-up three-point specialist, which is really going to short-change him in the long run. He can be more than that.
I can't see at all how Walton fits into Whit's philosophy. Guys like Walton (and any legitimate big man) have no role on a Whit-coached team except to play defense and rebound. It's no wonder he keeps whiffing on bigs; his game plan rejects their potential in the offense, utilizing them primarily as passers and rebounders.
Last Edit: Mar 31, 2020 12:33:56 GMT -6 by lmills72